2 ms·

> there is no responsibility on them when things go wrong Legal responsibility? Other than that, I've seen executives held responsible just as much as non-exec

> there is no responsibility on them when things go wrong Legal responsibility? Other than that, I've seen executives held responsible just as much as non-executives in my career, from firings to demotions to "transfers". It's not a magical suit of protection +3. > I'd like to see in jail those who make decisions Then no one would want to make decisions, other than psychopaths. No thanks. It's unrealistic to think everyone can know the consequences of every decision they make.

meesles 6y ago
> Then no one would want to make decisions That's lazy. We hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. If you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk and get caught, you get in trouble. If you kill someone due to negligence or intentionally, you get in trouble. These execs knowingly cut corners and then conspired to cover their asses when things went wrong. This is not an edge-case where something went horrifically wrong that no one saw coming. Warnings were raised and processes in place to protect consumers were ignored. They should be jailed.
bostonsre 6y ago
"It's not a magical suit of protection" I kind of think that just getting fired for being partially responsible for the deaths of 100s of people is definitely getting off easy. They got people killed and caused billions in losses for other companies. Someone that steals a car goes to jail for up to 10 years. Which person had a bigger negative impact on society? "Then no one would want to make decisions, other than psychopaths. No thanks. It's unrealistic to think everyone can know the consequences of every decision they make." They build aircraft that fly at 30k feet stuffed full of people. Without actual legal consequences beyond docking paychecks, it is a recipe for disaster. How exactly are we supposed to stop the literal gambling with peoples lives because of the potential for a large upside and with the only downside being that they won't make lots of money (so, they just end up even and don't actually lose anything). Las Vegas would go bust in a week with rules like that.

meesles 6y ago

> Then no one would want to make decisions That's lazy. We hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. If you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk and get caught, you get in trouble. If you kill someone due to negligence or intentionally, you get in trouble. These execs knowingly cut corners and then conspired to cover their asses when things went wrong. This is not an edge-case where something went horrifically wrong that no one saw coming. Warnings were raised and processes in place to protect consumers were ignored. They should be jailed.

bostonsre 6y ago

"It's not a magical suit of protection" I kind of think that just getting fired for being partially responsible for the deaths of 100s of people is definitely getting off easy. They got people killed and caused billions in losses for other companies. Someone that steals a car goes to jail for up to 10 years. Which person had a bigger negative impact on society? "Then no one would want to make decisions, other than psychopaths. No thanks. It's unrealistic to think everyone can know the consequences of every decision they make." They build aircraft that fly at 30k feet stuffed full of people. Without actual legal consequences beyond docking paychecks, it is a recipe for disaster. How exactly are we supposed to stop the literal gambling with peoples lives because of the potential for a large upside and with the only downside being that they won't make lots of money (so, they just end up even and don't actually lose anything). Las Vegas would go bust in a week with rules like that.